Himachal Pradesh Court August 1997 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mohan Lal Vs. Executive Engineer (E) Division, H.P.S.E.B. and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-26-1997
Reported in: I(1998)ACC412,1999ACJ120
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. This appeal is against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the Act'). The appellant was working as a beldar. On 7.2.1985 an accident occurred while he was in the course of his employment on account of which he suffered loss of his left arm which was amputated above elbow. The medical certificate issued to him showed that he had suffered permanent physical impairment of 80 per cent. He was earning Rs. 360 per month as a beldar. The Commissioner has worked out the compensation at Rs. 31,000.32 and awarded the same. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the award amount. According to the appellant, there are two errors committed by the Commissioner. The first is that the Commissioner has not considered the question of awarding penalty under Section 4-A of the Act. The employer had not given the information as required by the Act within a period of 7 days from the date of the accident. The accident occur...
Ranvinder Singh Vs. Raghunath Singh and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-19-1997
Reported in: AIR1998HP24
P.K. Palli, J. 1. The plaintiff/appellant, who has lost in both the Courts below, is in second appeal before this Court, The parties, hereinafter in this judgment, shall be referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants'.2. The admitted position is that Kapura, son of Bhola was the grand father of the plaintiff and father of defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiff. Kapuura is said to be an 'ADNA MALIK'. Raghunath Singh, defendant No. 1 married one Ram Rakhi who has been impleaded as defendant No. 8 in the suit, and the plaintiff claims himself to be son of defendant No. 1 through Ram Rakhi. Defendant No. 1.Raghunath Singh thereafter married one Satya Devi who has been impleaded as defendant No. 7. Defendants Nos. 3,4,5 and 6 are daughters of Raghunath Singh, defendant No. 1 through his other wife Satya Devi, and defendant No. 2 is alleged to be their son.3. The suit out of which the appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiff for joint possession and declaration to...
Abdul HussaIn Kadri Vs. Ms. Nisar Fatimah and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: I(1998)DMC623
Surinder Sarup, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of two revision petitions filed by the husband and wife respectively, and both of them are directed against the same impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmour as common question of law and facts arise.2. Briefly the facts are that Nisar Fatima, wife, filed an application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance for herself as well as her minor children Kaushal Ali, Abida Khatna and Abdul Quaume. It has been pleaded by her that she had married Abdul Hussain in the year 1973 according to Muslim rites. Above-mentioned three minor children were born from this wedlock. She is looking after them at present. The husband had left the company of the wife and minor children in February; 1990 and started living with his brothers. He also refused to maintain them. The matter was taken to the Panchayat, but the respondent did not agree. He is in the service of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as Compounder pos...
Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Vs. Amra ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: I(1998)ACC419,1998ACJ1385
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation (here-in-after referred to as 'the Corporation') against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1), Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Solan dated 25.4.1989, whereby the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called 'the insurance company') has been exonerated for payment of compensation awarded in the favour of Amra Devi and Shashi Pal Nadda (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants'). While passing the impugned award, Corporation has been directed for the payment of compensation awarded in terms of the award. It has been held that Corporation is liable for payment of compensation for the act of its employee Joyti Parshad (hereinafter referred to as 'the driver').2. Facts of this case need briefly to be referred to for properly understanding the present case as well as for appreciating the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Deceased Sant Ram Nadda was working as Dep...
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Durga Devi and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ88
Surinder Sarup, J.1. A judgment is being recorded in F.A.O. (MVA) No. 77 of 1988.2. This judgment will dispose of the following eight appeals which have been filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the eight different awards of Mr. Janeshwar Goyal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Solan and Sirmaur Districts at Nahan dated 14.3.1988. These eight appeals arise out of the same accident in which about 20 people are stated to have died and the awards were made by the M.A.C.T. aforementioned in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased.3. The facts giving rise to the appeals are that Baisakhi Fair known as Vishu Mela is held in village Sataun in the last week of April annually. People from far and near go to attend that mela with their agricultural produce and goods for the purpose of sale. As per the custom the said Vishu Mela in the year 1986 was held at Sataun on 26.4.1986.4. A large number of people had boarded truck No. HPN 2049 with their produce in order to reach the me...
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Uma Dutt and ors.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1999ACJ447
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. This appeal at the instance of State of Himachal Pradesh is against judgment dated 3.2.1995 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Solan and Sirmour Districts at Solan, whereby the claim petition of the respondent workman was allowed and an amount of Rs. 49,294 was granted to him as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of accident, i.e., 21.1.1991 till the date of realisation. The State of Himachal Pradesh has also been imposed penalty to the tune of 50 per cent amounting to Rs. 24,647. The amount of compensation, interest and penalty is Rs. 73,941.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently urged that the Commissioner has relied upon medical certificate, Exh. P-l, which was not proved in accordance with law by producing the doctor who had issued that certificate. Learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that by t...
Munish Kumar Alias Munish Gir and ors. Vs. Baghula Mukhi Devi Bankhand ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: AIR1998HP1
1. It is the defendant who has filed this second appeal. The parlies, herein-after in the judgment, shall be referred to as 'plaintiff and 'defendant'.2. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by Baghula Mukhi Devi, Bankhandi through its Mohitmim and Mahant Shanti Gir seeking declaration that the defendant is not entitled to interfere with the management and control of the temple and the properties attached to it as detailed in the plaint. It was also stated that he was not the 'Chela' of Shanti Gir through whom the present suit has been filed and the defendant is wrongly claiming his rights of management in the affairs of temple whereas he has no such right nor he is the 'Chela' of Mahant Shanti Gir as is being claimed by him. The temple has considerable property atlached to it. A part of the properly is said to be in possession of the defendant and decree for possession has also been claimed in respect of that properly. The defendant is sought to be permanently restr...
Pushpa Devi Thakur Vs. L.i.C. of India and anr.
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Aug-06-1997
Reported in: 1998ACJ1017
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. Though it is an unfortunate case that the insured died within two days after taking the policy of the insurance, the law is clear on the subject. The petitioner's husband gave the premium for insurance policy and proposal was sent on 21.7.1988. He died on 23.7.1988. The proposal reached the respondent Corporation only on 25.7.1988, by which time the proposer was dead. The petitioner claimed that the contract has come into existence when the insurance Corporation sent the first premium receipt dated 13.8.1988. It is stated in the said receipt that the acceptance of the payment places the Corporation at risk with effect from the date of acceptance-cum-first premium receipt.2. But even on the date on which the receipt was prepared, that is, 13.8.1988, the proposer was already dead. Hence, the contract could not have come into existence at all. Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act provides that the communication of an acceptance is complete as against the acceptor whe...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›